Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3053 State v. Crockett

By: dmc-admin//September 10, 2001//

00-3053 State v. Crockett

By: dmc-admin//September 10, 2001//

Listen to this article

We further conclude that defendant’s request for resentencing because his sentence was unduly harsh has already been adjudicated and there are no new factors which would justify modifying defendant’s sentence.

“Although there may be situations… in which it is appropriate not to apply the waiver doctrine to a defendant when the State failed to assert it in the trial court, deciding not to apply it as a general rule would contradict the purposes of Wis. Stat. sec. 974.06 and Escalona-Naranjo. The supreme court stated that the primary purpose of the requirement that defendants consolidate all their postconviction claims in the first motion or appeal was to provide finality to criminal litigation. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d at 178, 185. This purpose does not change in importance depending on whether the State makes a waiver argument in the trial court. Either way, the purpose is frustrated if defendants without a sufficient reason are allowed to raise claims that could have been asserted before. It makes little sense to make the application of the requirements of sec. 974.06 contingent on the State’s litigation strategy when it is defendants, not the State, to which the requirements are directed.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Rock County, Lussow, J., Dykman, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: David D. Cook, Monroe

For Respondent: Jeffrey J. Kassel, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests